11
$\begingroup$

NothingToInstall.com has lost its name and got back to WebApps; there is ongoing discussion about it on Meta.SO here and Meta WebApps here. What do you think about it, especially in case of our site?

EDIT: And we did it; thanks everybody for supporting the idea.

$\endgroup$
0

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
17
$\begingroup$

Absolutely. We should have our own domain name specific to our community.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I concur. But looking at those discussions -- Jeff Atwood's contributions in particular -- it seems like this is a fait accompli. Discouraging stuff -- it's hard to see how anything other than ill will and damage can possibly result. $\endgroup$
    – walkytalky
    Oct 4, 2010 at 13:37
  • $\begingroup$ yes, the push back has been primarily negative. The sudden about-face about domain names reminds me of the earlier fiasco with how they changed the process of setting up beta sites after a lot of people went to a lot of effort to setting up beta sites. All our votes, time and energy we devoted to the domain name question is down the drain? $\endgroup$
    – svadali
    Oct 4, 2010 at 14:23
  • $\begingroup$ I think we still have a chance to win this; to me this looks like a impulsive decision provoked by the fact that getting NTI out of beta was not combined with views explosion. Yet we will need good arguments and strong community support. $\endgroup$
    – user88
    Oct 4, 2010 at 15:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is crazy. They have made so many changes to how they're managing this process. Including the recent decision to stop several proposals from going past the commitment phase right when they had reached that point. I'm all for SE making decisions, but this has all be handled in the worst possible fashion. And I understand that other sites had a hard time picking a name: we did too! But we put a process in place and made a decision... $\endgroup$
    – Shane
    Oct 4, 2010 at 21:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Oh man. They really seem to have soemthing backwards here. None of the independently named and successful sites went through a "graduation" process -- mathoverflow, stackoverflow, serverfault, superuser, biostar. I don't see how they can claim that you need to be part of the SE network to get traffic and then win the right to name (or that's how I'm reading some of the comments in those links). There's no reason to think that NTI or CrossValidated can't become successful simply because they don't bear the SE name. $\endgroup$
    – ars
    Oct 5, 2010 at 2:50
2
$\begingroup$

How are AskUbuntu and SuperUser an exception to the rule? Perhaps this change just happened Sunday?

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I think that the argument being made for SuperUser is that it has a much bigger user base. I can't understand how AskUbuntu qualifies, however. I guess because Canonical agreed to it, so it became less of a creative decision? $\endgroup$
    – Shane
    Oct 12, 2010 at 15:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ SuperUser is an old story -- it is pre SE2.0 site. AskUbuntu is, "an exception". Official story is here: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/67175/… . Yet I still hope that that we could also follow this way; at least no-one has said "no" yet. $\endgroup$
    – user88
    Oct 12, 2010 at 15:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ SuperUser is one of the original trilogy sites created by the SO team, not a StackExchange site. As for AskUbuntu, I suspect that that site's relationship with Canonical (described here: meta.askubuntu.com/questions/434/…) has something to do with why they get to keep their name. $\endgroup$
    – Matt Parker
    Oct 12, 2010 at 15:06
  • $\begingroup$ That is by far the most uncanny example of multiple simultaneous answering I've seen yet on a Stack site. $\endgroup$
    – Matt Parker
    Oct 12, 2010 at 15:09
  • $\begingroup$ Hence the unique css design, fonts, etc. This makes some sense now. Still wish we had our own too. $\endgroup$
    – M. Tibbits
    Oct 12, 2010 at 15:10
  • $\begingroup$ Me, too. We may yet. I have somehow managed to hang on to a scrap of hope, since we actually came up with a good name. $\endgroup$
    – Matt Parker
    Oct 12, 2010 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not as optimistic given that NothingToInstall didn't hold. I thought that was a reasonable name. $\endgroup$
    – Shane
    Oct 12, 2010 at 16:04
  • $\begingroup$ I'm losing optimism, but holding on to a little faith based on mbq's cajoling .. :) $\endgroup$
    – ars
    Oct 12, 2010 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ We are a different case a bit -- the main argument I force is that it is hard to find <topic>.stackexchange.com name that reflects our wide scope (data is some idea, but far from perfect), also this is "science-site" so our value is quality not quantity (sites with traffic larger than ServerFault.com are told to get its own name -- this is probably the most irrational part of this whole unification idea) and it needs some other kind of promotion than sites for people coming from SO (WebApps, UI, GameDev, ...) or for casual people from Google (Cooking, Bicycles, Gaming,...). $\endgroup$
    – user88
    Oct 12, 2010 at 16:59
1
$\begingroup$

Latest news in topic: Seasoned advice (former cooking.SE) has its own name but not its own domain (seasonedadvice.com redirects to cooking.stackexchange.com).

$\endgroup$
-3
$\begingroup$

No. it's not worth it and it's too much of a distraction. We should have our own design eventually as the current one is deliberately designed to look "sketchy", but i'm not convinced the name is that important. Personally, I'm not that bothered either way, but i want to see how many people will vote 'No' if given the chance.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.